[EM] IRV vs Plurality (Dave Ketchum) (Kathy Dopp)

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:14:23 -0500
>> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>> To: EM Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs Plurality (Dave Ketchum)
>>>
>>> Don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> consider Burlington 2009 with the inconsequential candidates Simpson
>> and "write-in" eliminated and very real (but otherwise last)
>> candidate Dan Smith eliminated.  that least Wright, Montroll, and
>> Kiss.  with only those three left, these are the pile counts of the
>> only salient permutations of marked ballots:
>>
>>   1332  M>K>W
>>    767  M>W>K
>>    455  M
>>   2043  K>M>W
>>    371  K>W>M
>>    568  K
>>   1513  W>M>K
>>    495  W>K>M
>>   1289  W
>>
>> now, Kathy, ask yourself why there are no piles marked just M>K or
>> M>W or K>M or K>W or W>M or W>K?  (those are the 6 piles you want to
>> enumerate in your 15.)
>
> Robert, Your slip is showing again.

no slip nor nuttin' else under me kilt.  want me to show you?

> Exactly as I tried to point out to you, you were either disallowing
> voters to rank only two candidates or to rank all three.

no, it has nothing at all to do with allowing or disallowing the  
voters to

>   I see I was
> correct and you are disallowing voters to rank only two candidates and
> have, as Abd ul also pointed out to you, left 3 choose 2 or 6 possible
> choices out of your list.

because all unmarked candidates are tied for last place, when there  
is only one unmarked candidate, there is *no* consequential  
difference between leaving that candidate unmarked or marking that  
candidate last.

>
> Unfortunately for your system of disallowing voters to rank only two
> choices, US courts would rule that any such ballots where voters rank
> only two choices as legal votes that must be counted, so you cannot
> have a voting system in the US which disallows those choices.
>
>>
>>
>>> All your formulas are incorrect.
>>
>> and, since you don't understand your opponent's argument, then your
>> evaluation of it is authoritative.
>
> Robert I just proved you wrong, as did Abd ul earlier.  So please try
> again if you think your other formula is correct, because
> mathematically provably both your formulas are obviously incorrect to
> any election methods expert on this list or any mathematician or
> probabilist, not just to me.
>
> Reality is a really nice place Robert. I invite you sincerely to join
> us in the real world.


Kathy, come to the USENET newsgroup comp.dsp someday.  i'm quite used  
to analyzing and sometimes deconstructing arguments.

you haven't made a dent.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."